Shengavit from Kura-Araxes to Early Kurgan Periods

The End of the Kura-Araxes Phenomenon ARAXES III STUDIES IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORY OF THE CAUCASUS AREA & ADJACENT REGIONS General Editors Elena Rova, Università Ca’ Foscari, Venezia Marc Lebeau, European Centre for Upper Mesopotamian Studies, Brussels Editorial Board Safar Ashurov, National Academy of Sciences, Baku Ruben Badalyan, National Academy of Sciences, Yerevan Christine Chataigner, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, Lyon Barbara Helwing, University of Sydney Mehmet Işıklı, Atatürk University, Erzurum Stephan Kroll, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München David Lordkipanidze, Georgian National Museum, Tbilisi Marcel Otte, Université de Liège Aynur Özfırat, Mardin Artuklu University Giulio Palumbi, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, Lyon Sabine Reinhold, German Archaeological Institute, Berlin Lauren Ristvet, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Adam T. Smith, Cornell University, Ithaca Geoffrey Summers, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago Viktor Trifonov, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg ARAXES is a part of the ARWA Collection Cover image: View of the Kura-Araxes site of Voskeblur (Armenia) and Mount Ararat (A. Mkrtchyan). Volumes published in this series are listed at the back of the book. VOLUME 3 © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. The End of the Kura-Araxes Phenomenon The Chrono-Cultural Aspect of the EB/MB Transition in the South Caucasus Edited by Ruben Badalyan & Bérengère Perello British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Keywords: Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, Kura-Araxes Culture, South Caucasus, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Material Culture, Red-Black Burnished Ware. © 2024, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. ISBN: 978-2-503-60673-6 D/2024/0095/26 Printed in the EU on acid-free paper © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Table of Contents List of Illustrations �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������vii RUBEN BADALYAN & BÉRENGÈRE PERELLO 1� For a Reassessment of the EB/MB Transition in the Kura-Araxes oikumene: The ChronoCultural Aspect ......................................................................................................................................1 ANNAPAOLA PASSERINI 2� Understanding the End of the Kura-Araxes Phenomenon: The Radiocarbon Perspective ���������������7 GIORGI BEDIANASHVILI, ANDREW JAMIESON & CLAUDIA SAGONA 3� Archaeology at the Frontiers: Investigations at Rabati, Southern Caucasus and Evidence of Cultural Memory �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������39 ELENA ROVA 4� The Post-Kura-Araxes Period in the Southern Caucasus: Reflections on Definitions and Terminology, and a View from Shida Kartli �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������67 NINO SHANSHASHVILI & GODERDZI NARIMANISHVILI 5� The Final Stage of the Kura-Araxes Culture from Kvemo Kartli ��������������������������������������������������������93 MARIAM AMIRYAN, RENÉ KUNZE, ARSHAVIR HOVHANNISYAN, HAYK MELIKADAMYAN, ROMAN HOVSEPYAN & ARSEN BOBOKHYAN 6� The Eastern Shores of Lake Sevan during the Early Bronze Age: Preliminary Reflections �����������121 RUBEN BADALYAN, PAVEL AVETISYAN, BÉRENGÈRE PERELLO, ANNAPAOLA PASSERINI, ARMINE HARUTYUNYAN, ARSEN BOBOKHYAN & LEVON AGHIKYAN 7� Late Kura-Araxes Sub-Complexes of Armenia: Synchronization Problems in the Light of New Data ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������143 PAVEL AVETISYAN & RUBEN BADALYAN 8� The Chronology of the Archaeological Complexes of Armenia of the Last Quarter of the Third and the First Half of the Second Millennium bce in the Context of Transformation and Fragmentation of the Archaeocultural Environment ������������������������������������������������������������������������173 HAKOB SIMONYAN & MITCHELL S. ROTHMAN 9� Shengavit from Kura-Araxes to Early Kurgan Periods ����������������������������������������������������������������������221 GIULIO PALUMBI, BAKHTIYAR JALILOV, MUZAFFAR HUSEYNOV, ALEXIA DECAIX, MODWENE POULMARC’H & ANDREA RICCI 10� Preliminary Results of the Excavations at Qaraçinar (Azerbaijan) and New Data on the ‘KuraAraxes–Early Kurgans’ Transition on the Eastern Piedmont of the Lesser Caucasus ��������������������245 SEPIDEH MAZIAR 11� Metamorphism of the End: A Close Look at the Final Phases of the Kura-Araxes Cultural Tradition �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������273 GEOFFREY D. SUMMERS 12� The Later Phases of the Early Trans-Caucasian: A View from Yanik Tepe in North-West Iran ����297 RAPHAEL GREENBERG 13� Notes on the End of the Kura-Araxes (‘Khirbet Kerak’) Presence in the Southern Levant �����������319 Index ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������333 © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. List Of Illustrations 1. For a Reassessment of the EB/MB Transition in the Kura-Araxes oikumene — Ruben Badalyan & Bérengère Perello Table 1.1: Proposed chronological periodization based on this volume and previous publications (KA: Kura-Araxes, TV: Trialeti-Vanadzor, ETC: Early Transcaucasian Culture) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Understanding the End of the Kura-Araxes Phenomenon: The Radiocarbon Perspective — Annapaola Passerini Figure 2.1: Main Kura-Araxes sub-complexes belonging to the KA II phase identified in Armenia. . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 2.2: The radiocarbon (14C) cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 2.3: The IntCal20 calibration curve. Segments that are relatively flat, also known as plateaus (a), indicate decreased 14C production. Segments that are steep downwards (b) indicate increased 14 C production. Segments characterized by numerous ‘wiggles’ or ‘reverses’ relatively close to each other indicate rapid shifts in 14C levels following a decreasing pattern (c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 2.4: IntCal20 calibration curve. The outcome of calibration varies according to the point of intersection. When radiocarbon age (bp, y axis) intersects a plateau (a), calibration results in a wide non-precise range. When it intersects a slope (b), calibration results in a precise, relatively narrow range. When it intersects wiggles or reverses (c), calibration results in multiple, overlapping ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 2.5: The KA (phase KA I and phase KA II) and the post-KA period plotted on the calibration curve. . . . 13 Figure 2.6: Multiplot of sixty simulated 14C dates for hypothetical samples dating to 2800 bce, 2700 bce, and 2600 bce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 2.7: Multiplot of sixty simulated 14C dates for hypothetical samples dating to 2400 bce, 2300 bce, and 2200 bce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 2.8: Curve plot showing the distribution of two simulated 14C dates for two hypothetical samples dating to 2560 bce (Date 1, 2560 bce ± 20) and 2500 bce (Date 2, 2500 bce ± 20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 2.9: Bayesian chronological model of Date 1 and Date 2 shown in Fig. 2.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 2.10: Chronological model of twelve simulated 14C dates on the area of age inversion 2600– 2500 bce from hypothetical unstratified samples referring to the same occupation or activity . . . 18 Figure 2.11: Chronological model of twelve simulated 14C dates on the area of age inversion 2600– 2500 bce from hypothetical stratified samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 2.12: Re-run of the Bayesian chronological model compiled by Project ArAGATS for the site of Gegharot, EBA only, with detail of stratum 1b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 2.13: Comparison between the date estimate for Gegharot — stratum 1b modelled as an isolated simple bounded Phase and modelled with stratum 1a as a Sequence of Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 2.14: Bayesian chronological model for the KA II occupation at Voskeblur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 2.15: Bayesian chronological model for the KA II occupation at Artanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 viii List Of Illustrations Figure 2.16: Multiplot of legacy 14C dates from Martqopi and Bedeni contexts (pre-AMS dating and pre2000s), with indication of contexts that were recently redated by AMS (in green) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 2.17: a) Multiplot and b) curve plot of 14C dates from phase 2 (pits) and phase 3 (kurgan 54) at Mentesh Tepe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 2.18: Chronological model of the Late KA levels at Aygavan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table 2.1: Synoptic table showing the main periodizations and chronologies proposed for the Early Bronze Age and Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus, with indication of precalibration and post-calibration proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 2.2: Periodization of the Kura-Araxes culture according to Badalyan with indication of the main ceramic complexes by phase and subregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 2.3: Sixty simulated 14C dates for hypothetical samples dating to 2800 bce, 2700 bce, and 2600 bce shown in Fig. 2.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 2.4: Sixty simulated 14C dates for hypothetical samples dating to 2400 bce, 2300 bce, and 2200 bce shown in Fig. 2.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 2.5: List of 14C dates cited in text and used for Bayesian chronological modelling in Figs 2.9–2.12, 2.14–2.18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3. Archaeology at the Frontiers: Investigations at Rabati, Southern Caucasus and Evidence of Cultural Memory — Giorgi Bedianashvili, Andrew Jamieson & Claudia Sagona Figure 3.1: Map of Georgia indicating the archaeological sites of Rabati and Chobareti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 3.2: Aerial view of Rabati looking south . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 3.3: Aerial view of the excavated trenches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 3.4: 1. Aerial view of trench AB10–11, the circular stone-lined feature in the centre is a later medieval pit. Kura-Araxes pottery fragments: 2. nested lozenge motifs on a body fragment, RSPF 854/2, B10.2 [854] bag 120 (2019); 3. handle with drilled hole in the top, RSPF 845/9, A11.4 [845] bag 103 (2019); 4. body fragment with dimple on the left side, RSPF 845/8, A11.4 [845] bag 103 (2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 3.5: 1. Remnant fire installation in trench D9.4 [550] dated to 2342–2018 cal BC; 2. north section in D9.4 cut by narrow Soviet test trench, aerial view of the D9–10 trench in 2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 3.6: Map of sites mentioned in the text (s — settlement; k — one or more kurgans; b — burials and cemeteries; r — religious site, altar, sanctuary): GEORGIA: 1. Rabati (Zveli) (s); 2. Chobareti; 3. Irmis Rka; 4. Amiranis Gora (s, b); 5. Digasheni (s); 6. Satkhe (s); 7. Paravani (k); 8. Natsargora (s); 9. Aradetis Orgora (s); 10. Berikldeebi (s); 11. Kvatskhela; 12. Tsikhiagora (s); 13. Akhali Zhinvali (s, r); 14. Mukhatgverdi (s, b); 15. Badaani (s); 32. 16. Orkhevi (k); 17. Beshtasheni (s); 18. Bedeni (k); 19. Nachivchavebi (s, b); Nachivchavebi in Tetritsqaro district; 20. Ilto (s, k); 21. Ananauri (k). EASTERN TÜRKIYE: 22. Sos Höyük. ABKHAZIA: 23. Pichori (s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 3.7: 1. Plan of Berikldeebi indicating cultural levels III, IV, and V ; 2. hearth in building 8 ; 3. twopronged andiron from Sos Höyük, Art. 3406, L16 [4161] bag 68, obj.45. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 3.8: 1–2. Squat pot, Late Kura-Araxes or possible Martqopi, RSPF 549/1, D9.4 [549] section (2019); 3. Bedeni reconstructed tankard RSPF 208/7, D9.2 [208] bag 53 (2018); 4–5. Bedeni tankard fragments, RSPF 228/6, D9.2 [228] bag 121 (2019); 6. deep and baggy cooking pot with small knobs, RSPF 200/19, D9.2 [200] bag 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. List Of Illustrations Figure 3.9: ix 1. Very large tray from Rabati with scooped front wall, RSPF 200/30, D9.2 [200] bag 58 (2018); 2–3. tray from Sos Höyük M17 [3766] bag 49, Late Chalcolithic (Sos period VA); 3–4. hearth fixture, RSPF 859/2, B10.2 [859] 2019, in Bedeni contexts; 5. Early Bronze Age, Kura-Araxes zoomorphic andiron from Karnut, near Mt Aragats, Armenia ; 6. andiron fragment from field survey west Sos Höyük, eastern Türkiye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 3.10: 1. Bridge handle with raised wavy ridge along the upper and outer sides from Rabati RSPF 224–21-229/1 D9.2 (2019); 2. rare pottery bowl with horizontal bridge-handle from Rabati D9.2 [229] bag 93 (2019); 3. scoop-like bowl from Berikldeebi; 4. bowl with horizontal handle from Rabati in the Akhaltsikhe Museum; 5. Kura-Araxes scoop-like vessel from Khizanaant Gora; 6. scoop from Kvatskhelebi; 7. handle from a Kura-Araxes period scoop from Rabati, RSPF 812/3, B11.3 [812] bag 64 (2108) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 3.11: 1–2. Badaani settlement; 3. Ananauri kurgan 1; 4. Ananauri kurgan 3; 5. Ananauri kurgan 1; 6. Kura-Araxes jar fragment with relief spiral design from Chobareti SPF 830/8, C41.4 [830], bag 126, 2016; 7–8. Zhinvali sanctuary possible altar with relief spiralling face designs; ceramic loom weights from Rabati: 9. Art. 163; 10. Art. 197; 11. Art. 307, Art. 272 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Figure 3.12: Remnant habitation levels of Early Bronze Age date in Sos Höyük with two hearth areas [1853] & [1842]; objects left near the hearths are pictured (Art. 2645 an antler projectile point, Art. 2695 an obsidian arrowhead and Art. 2620 an animal figurine); the floor was cut by later pits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Figure 3.13: Plan of a Kura-Araxes house in Sos Höyük with in-ground, well-made hearth; a miniature two-pronged andiron with rare, incised decoration on the front face was left near the hearth, Art. 3280, M17 [3736] bag 132, obj. 55 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Table 3.1: Archaeological sequence at Berikldeebi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Table 3.2: Archaeological sequence at Tsikhiagora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 4. The Post-Kura-Araxes Period in the Southern Caucasus: Reflections on Definitions and Terminology, and a View from Shida Kartli — Elena Rova Figure 4.1: a) Examples of graves from the KA (left) and EK period (right); b) Typical examples of KA (left) and EK (Martqopi, Bedeni) pottery (right); c) Typical examples of KA (left) and EK metal ornaments (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Figure 4.2: Different visualizations of the distribution of the KA culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Figure 4.3: Different visualizations of the distribution of the EK cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Figure 4.4: Bedeni vessels from outside of the main distribution area of Bedeni pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Figure 4.5: Plan and burial goods from ‘Martqopi’ grave in Hasansu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Figure 4.6: Pottery from kurgan ST 54 at Mentesh Tepe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Figure 4.7: Vessels from Ananauri kurgans I and II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Figure 4.8: Vessels from Ananauri kurgan 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Figure 4.9: Examples of Martqopi (?) vessels illustrated as ‘Bedeni’ in publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Figure 4.10: Map of Georgia with approximate location of sites investigated by the ‘Georgian-Italian Shida Kartli Archaeological Project’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Figure 4.11: Examples of pottery from phases KA I, II, and III from the Shida Kartli region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 x List Of Illustrations Figure 4.12: Examples of Shida Kartli RBBW and BBW pottery from Natsargora and Aradetis Orgora/ Doghlauri cemeteries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Figure 4.13: Examples of possible Martqopi items from Natsargora, Shida Kartli region (left); typical examples of Martqopi pottery from various Georgian sites (right). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Figure 4.14: Examples of Bedeni fine ware from the Shida Kartli region: Natsargora, Okherakhevi and Berikldeebi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Figure 4.15: Examples of Bedeni coarse ware from the Shida Kartli region: Natsargora and Berikldeebi . . . . . . 81 Figure 4.16: Distribution map of the KA and EK settlement and funerary sites in Shida Kartli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Figure 4.17: Berikldeebi, aerial photo of the Bedeni level III and plans of some Bedeni buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Figure 4.18: Fragments of different terracotta reliefs from Natsargora and tentative reconstructions . . . . . . . . 83 Figure 4.19: Kurgan no. 1 at Okherakhevi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Figure 4.20: Bebnisi kurgan no. 1, plan, section, and finds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Figure 4.21: Grave 2013-175 at Doghlauri, excavation photo and finds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 5. The Final Stage of the Kura-Araxes Culture from Kvemo Kartli — Nino Shanshashvili & Goderdzi Narimanishvili Figure 5.1: 1.–2. Geographical location of Kvemo Kartli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Figure 5.2: 1. Early Bronze Age sites on the territory of Kvemo Kartli. 2. Early Bronze Age sites on the territory of Tetritskaro municipality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Figure 5.3: 1. Samshvilde ancient city. General plan; 2. Samshvilde ancient city. General view. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Figure 5.4: 1.–2. Samshvilde ancient city. Settlement of Kura-Araxes culture. General view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Figure 5.5: 1.–2. Samshvilde ancient city. Settlement of Kura-Araxes culture. Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Figure 5.6: 1.–2. Samshvilde ancient city. Settlement of Kura-Araxes culture. Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Figure 5.7: 1.–2. Samshvilde ancient city. Settlement of Kura-Araxes culture. View from the east. . . . . . . . . . 100 Figure 5.8: 1.–2. Samshvilde. Settlement of Kura-Araxes culture. View from the south . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Figure 5.9: Samshvilde: 1–13. Ceramics from the no. 5 trench . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Figure 5.10: Samshvilde: clay ‘plate’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Figure 5.11: Samshvilde: 1–4. Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Figure 5.12: Samshvilde: 1–4. Ceramics; 5. The hearth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Figure 5.13: Samshvilde: 1–5. Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Figure 5.14: Samshvilde: 1–3. Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Figure 5.15: Samshvilde: 1–4. Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Figure 5.16: Kvemo Akhalsheni. General view of the settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Figure 5.17: Kvemo Akhalsheni. General view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Figure 5.18: Kvemo Akhalsheni. General plan of the settlement. Settlement of Kura-Araxes culture is marked in yellow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. List Of Illustrations xi Figure 5.19: Kvemo Akhalsheni. Settlement of Kura-Araxes culture. Room nos 2, 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Figure 5.20: Kvemo Akhalsheni. Settlement of Kura-Araxes culture. Ceramics on the floor of room no. 7 . . . . 107 Figure 5.21: Kvemo Akhalsheni. Settlement of Kura-Araxes culture. 1. Room no. 4, hearth under ‘church’ wall. 2. Room no. 4, hearth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Figure 5.22: Kvemo Akhalsheni: 1. The hearth. Room no. 3, drawing. 2. The hearth. Room no. 3, photo . . . . . . 108 Figure 5.23: Kvemo Akhalsheni. Settlement of Kura-Araxes culture. Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Figure 5.24: Kvemo Akhalsheni. Settlement of Kura-Araxes culture. Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Figure 5.25: Kvemo Akhalsheni. Vessel (cat. no. 8728) from room no. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Figure 5.26: Kvemo Akhalsheni: 1, 3–6. Sickle flint blades (cat. nos 4716, 4848, 4957, 4960 — room no. 2); 2. Sickle obsidian blade (cat. no. 4959 — room no. 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Figure 5.27: Kvemo Akhalsheni. 1–6. Ceramics (cat. nos 8733, 8734, 8735, 8737, 8738, 8740) from room nos 6 and 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Figure 5.28: Kvemo Akhalsheni. Ceramics: cat. nos 4976, 4977 room no. 3; cat. nos 8730, 8734, 8737, 8740, 8744–49 room no. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Figure 5.29: Kvemo Akhalsheni. Ceramics: cat. nos 8732, 8733, 8734, 8738 room no. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Figure 5.30: Kvemo Akhalsheni. 1. Ceramics: cat. no. 1249 room no. 6; cat. nos 4231, 4236, 4832, 5193, 5199 room no. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Figure 5.31: Kvemo Akhalsheni. Ceramics: cat. Nos 10129, 10201, 10236 trench no 1; cat. nos 8735, 8741, 8743, 8748, 8749, 9936, 9985, 10022, 10048, 10050, 10081, 10247 room no. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Figure 5.32: Beshtasheni, the location of excavations of Early Bronze Age layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Figure 5.33: Beshtasheni: 1. Early Bronze Age room nos 8, 9, 11. Plan; 2. Beshtasheni, the north-east part of the settlement. Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Figure 5.34: Beshtasheni: 1. Room no. 8 (level A); 2. Room nos 7, 8, 11 (levels A, B, C). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Figure 5.35: Beshtasheni, room no. 9 (level B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Figure 5.36: Beshtasheni, ceramics from levels A and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Figure 5.37: Beshtasheni, ceramics from level C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 6. The Eastern Shores of Lake Sevan during the Early Bronze Age: Preliminary Reflections — Mariam Amiryan, René Kunze, Arshavir Hovhannisyan, Hayk Melik-Adamyan, Roman Hovsepyan & Arsen Bobokhyan Figure 6.1: Map of the Early Bronze Age sites on the eastern shores of Lake Sevan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Figure 6.2: The air view of Sotk 2 settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Figure 6.3: The topographic map of Sotk 2 settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Figure 6.4: The northern profile of trench L, Sotk 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Figure 6.5: The Early Bronze Age layer and Middle Bronze–Late Bronze Age fortification wall, trench F, Sotk 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Figure 6.6: The Early Bronze Age floor and later intrusions, trench C, Sotk 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 xii List Of Illustrations Figure 6.7: The Early Bronze Age floor, trench D, Sotk 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Figure 6.8: The artefacts from Sotk 2: 1. andiron, 2. vessel from trench F, 3. clay wheel model, 4. bronze knife, 5. bronze dagger, 6. stone tool. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Figure 6.9: The Early Bronze Age pottery assemblage of Sotk 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Figure 6.10: The hill of Norabak 1 settlement from the south-west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Figure 6.11: The topographic map of Norabak 1 settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Figure 6.12: The northern profile of test trench A of Norabak 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Figure 6.13: The Early Bronze Age pottery assemblage of Norabak 1 settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Figure 6.14: The aerial view of Artanish 9 settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Figure 6.15: The topographic map of Artanish 9 settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Figure 6.16: The eastern profile of trench A of Artanish 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Figure 6.17: The Early Bronze Age layer with structures 5 and 8 and late modern oval structure, trench A, Artanish 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Figure 6.18: The Early Bronze Age layer with structure 1, trench B, Artanish 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Figure 6.19: The walls of structures 5 and 8, trench A, Artanish 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Figure 6.20: The clay hearth in trench A, Artanish 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Figure 6.21: The artefacts from Artanish 9: 1–10. pottery, 6. clay crucible, 11. clay wheel model, 12. flint sickle insert, 13. obsidian knife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Table 6.1: The Early Bronze Age sites of the eastern shores of Lake Sevan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Table 6.2: Radiocarbon dates from Artanish 9 and Sotk 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 7. Late Kura-Araxes Sub-Complexes of Armenia : Synchronization Problems in the Light of New Data — Ruben Badalyan, Pavel Avetisyan, Bérengère Perello, Annapaola Passerini, Armine Harutyunyan, Arsen Bobokhyan & Levon Aghikyan Figure 7.1: Map of the sites mentioned in the text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Figure 7.2: Pottery of the ‘Karnut-Shengavit’ type. Upper level of Gegharot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Figure 7.3: Pottery of the ‘Karnut-Shengavit’ type. Upper level of Voskeblur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Figure 7.4: Pottery of the ‘Shresh-Mokhrablur’ type. Upper level of Voskeblur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Figure 7.5: Chronological model for the KA II occupation of Voskeblur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Figure 7.6: Pottery of the settlement of Artanish 9 (nos 1–12) and Tsapatagh burial (nos 13–16) . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Figure 7.7: Chronological model for the KA II occupation of Artanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Figure 7.8: Pottery of the ‘Ayrum-Teghut’ type. Nos 1, 2 — Ayrum II; no. 3 — Ayrum III; nos 4–15 — Teghut II (Kharatanots) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Figure 7.9: Chronological model for the KA II occupation of Aygavan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Figure 7.10: Summary plot with date estimates for the KA II occupation at Gegharot, Voskeblur, Artanish, and Aygavan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. List Of Illustrations xiii Figure 7.11: Pottery of the ‘Aygavan-Shengavit’ type. Aygavan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Figure 7.12: Aerial photo of Aygavan settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Figure 7.13: ‘Early Trialetian’ / ‘Martqopi’ type of pottery. Nos 1–3 — Berkaber, burial no. 14; no. 4 — Dvin; no. 5 — Nor Oshakan; nos 6–13 — Berkaber, burial no. 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Figure 7.14: ‘Early Trialetian’ / ‘Martqopi’ type of pottery. Nos 1–4 — Teghut IV (Pijut), burial no. 17 . . . . . . . 162 Figure 7.15: ‘Early Trialetian’ / ‘Martqopi’ type of pottery. Nos 1–3 — Aknashen, burial Tr.11 UF 8d F12; no. 4 — Aknashen, sond B, burial 5 (V. Hakobyan); nos 5–8 — Dvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Figure 7.16: ‘Bedeni’ type of pottery. Berkaber, Gilasku hogher site, kurgan no. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Figure 7.17: Radiocarbon dates from Berkaber, Teghut, and Aknashen compared to Martqopi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Figure 7.18: Single plots of date estimates for the post-KA occupation at Aknashen, Berkaber, Teghut, and Martqopi as calculated in Fig. 7.17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Table 7.1: List of 14C dates mentioned in text and shown in figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 8. The Chronology of the Archaeological Complexes of Armenia of the Last Quarter of the Third and the First Half of the Second Millennium bce in the Context of Transformation and Fragmentation of the Archaeocultural Environment — Pavel Avetisyan & Ruben Badalyan Figure 8.1: Map of the sites mentioned in the text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Figure 8.2: Pottery of the Sevan-Artsakh culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Figure 8.3: Pottery of the Karmirberd culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Figure 8.4: Aruch. Burial III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Figure 8.5: The stratigraphic sequence of the TV and KB/KV cultures according to the stratigraphy of Havtаvan Tepe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Figure 8.6: Shamiram. Burial 5 with Van-Urmia/Karmirvank polychrome and Karmirberd, SevanArtsakh monochrome painted pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Figure 8.7: The stratigraphic sequence of the TV and SA/KB cultures according to the stratigraphy of Uzerlik Tepe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Figure 8.8а: Sisian-1. Burial 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Figure 8.8b: Sisian-1. Burial 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Figure 8.8c: Sisian-1. Burial 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Figure 8.9а: Sisian-1. Burial 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Figure 8.9b: Sisian-1. Burial 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Figure 8.9c: Sisian-1. Burial 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Figure 8.10а: Sisian-1. Burial 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Figure 8.10b: Sisian-1. Burial 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Figure 8.11a: Sisian-1. Burial 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Figure 8.11b: Sisian-1. Burial 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 xiv List Of Illustrations Figure 8.11c: Sisian-1. Burial 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Figure 8.12a: Sisian-1. Burial 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Figure 8.12b: Sisian-1. Burial 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Figure 8.13: Sisian-1. Burial 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Figure 8.14a: Sisian-1. Destroyed burial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Figure 8.14b: Sisian-1. Destroyed burial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Figure 8.15: Karashamb. Great kurgan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Figure 8.16: Nerkin Naver. Burial 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Figure 8.17: Sisian-2. Burial 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Figure 8.18: Sisian-2. Burial 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Figure 8.19a: Sisian-2. Burial 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Figure 8.19b: Sisian-2. Burial 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Figure 8.20: Sisian-2. Burial 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Figure 8.21a: Aratashen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Figure 8.21b: Aratashen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Figure 8.21c: Aratashen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Figure 8.22: Karashamb, burial 750 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Figure 8.23: Karashamb, burial 633 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 Figure 8.24: Radiocarbon dates from TV-1 sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 Figure 8.25: Radiocarbon dates from TV-2–SA-1 sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 Figure 8.26: Radiocarbon dates from SA-2–KB sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Figure 8.27: Summary plot with date estimates for the TV-1, TV-2, SA-1, SA-2, and KB archaeological complexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 9. Shengavit from Kura-Araxes to Early Kurgan Periods — Hakob Simonyan & Mitchell S. Rothman Figure 9.1: The Shengavit mound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 Figure 9.2: The region of Shengavit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Figure 9.3: Topographic map of Shengavit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Figure 9.4: Storage pits (silos), (a) dug into the area of the 2021 excavations likely from Early Kurgan times , and (b) at Early Bronze Age Amaziya, southern Shephela, Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Figure 9.5: Shengavit square K6 strata I/II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 Figure 9.6: Shengavit squares K6 and J5 stratum III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Figure 9.7: Shengavit square K6 stratum V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 Figure 9.8: Shengavit square K6 stratum VI/VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. List Of Illustrations Figure 9.9: xv Shengavit radiocarbon dates calibrated and K6 west balk section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Figure 9.10: Shengavit square K6 stratum VIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 Figure 9.11: Shengavit pottery typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Figure 9.12: Periodicity of Shengavit pottery types over time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Figure 9.13: Variation in pottery surface style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 Figure 9.14: Changing surface style at Shengavit (A: ritual symbol from tomb, B–D: different surface treatments, E: various pots from M5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 Figure 9.15: Bedeni pot from square M5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Figure 9.16: Pots from tombs 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Figure 9.17: Bedeni and Martqopi pots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Figure 9.18: Tomb 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Figure 9.19: Tomb 1 contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Figure 9.20: Tomb 2 contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Figure 9.21: Grave goods in tomb 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Figure 9.22: Early Kurgan, Middle Bronze pots from Shengavit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Figure 9.23: Shengavit wall. A. Western side of three-part wall, B. Excavation of wall on the north 2021, georadar image of wall , D. Excavation of wall on the north 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Table 9.1: Number of designs on pots by stratum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 10. Preliminary Results of the Excavations at Qaraçinar (Azerbaijan) and New Data on the ‘Kura-Araxes–Early Kurgan’ Transition on the Eastern Piedmont of the Lesser Caucasus — Giulio Palumbi, Bakhtiyar Jalilov, Muzaffar Huseynov, Alexia Decaix, Modwene Poulmarc’h & Andrea Ricci Figure 10.1: Localization of the settlement of Qaraçinar in the wider geographical context of the South Caucasus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Figure 10.2: a) The settlement of Qaraçinar in the valley of the Qaraçay; b) view of Qaraçinar taken from drone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Figure 10.3: Topographic plan of Qaraçinar showing the localization of the different excavation trenches . . . 251 Figure 10.4: The three segments of mud-brick walls dating to the Kura-Araxes period and brought to light in trench G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 Figure 10.5: a) Plan of US8 and of STR 2 ; b) charred grains from STR 2; c) STR2 during excavations . . . . . . . . . 253 Figure 10.6: a) Pit 20 during the excavations. Visible is the heavily burnt filling rich in fauna; b) fragment of a tray found in pit 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 Figure 10.7: a) Plan of the posthole floor US 103 excavated in 2019 and 2021; b) STR 8 featuring a circular perimeter with in situ grinding stones; c) STR 9 featuring a quadrangular perimeter and a large in situ pestle in background; d) general view of the posthole floor US 103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Figure 10.8: a) The posthole floor US 191; b) the posthole floor US 202; c) Kura-Araxes jar and fireplace associated with US 191 pierced by the posts of US 191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 xvi List Of Illustrations Figure 10.9: Bayesian model of calibrated chronology of the Kura-Araxes and Bedeni phases at Qaraçinar (2σ confidence) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Figure 10.10: Plot of the calibrated dates from Qaraçinar and kurgan 54 of Mentesh Tepe (2σ confidence) . . . . 258 Figure 10.11: Kura-Araxes ceramics from Qaraçinar. a–b) slab-building technique; c) finishing by combing of the internal surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Figure 10.12: Kura-Araxes ceramics from Qaraçinar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 Figure 10.13: Kura-Araxes ceramics from Qaraçinar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Figure 10.14: Bedeni ceramics from Qaraçinar: combing of the external surfaces and decorations . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Figure 10.15: Bedeni ceramics from Qaraçinar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Figure 10.16: Bedeni ceramics from Qaraçinar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 Figure 10.17: a) Pit containing a large grinding stone from the Bedeni levels; b) flint sickles from the Bedeni levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Table 10.1: Radiocarbon dates from Qaraçinar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 11. Metamorphism of the End: A Close Look at the Final Phases of the Kura-Araxes Cultural Tradition — Sepideh Maziar Figure 11.1: Sites with the final phases of the Kura-Araxes period that are discussed in this article: 1. Nadir Tepesi, 2. Köhne Tepesi, 3. Kul Tepe (Jolfa), 4. Köhne Shahar, 5. Haftavan Tepe, 6. Yanik, 7. Godin, 8. Shengavit, 9. Sos Höyük, 10. Gegharot, 11. Rabati, 12. Berikldeebi, 13. Tsikhiagora, 14. Narsargora, 15. Arslantepe, 16. Norşuntepe, 17. Tel Bet Yerah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Figure 11.2: Pits of phase VII in the Köhne Tepesi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 Figure 11.3: Post-KA sherds with burnished decoration in Köhne Tepesi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 Figure 11.4: Tomb II, Köhne Tepesi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 Figure 11.5: The inventory of tomb II, Köhne Tepesi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Table 11.1: Final phases of the Kura-Araxes period in the core area and diaspora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 12. The Later Phases of the Early Trans-Caucasian: A View from Yanik Tepe in North-West Iran — Geoffrey D. Summers Figure 12.1: Axonometric drawing of Yanik Tepe ETC IIA round houses and bins, level 17, trench HX . . . . . . . 300 Figure 12.2: A small selection of early ETC IIA sherds from Yanik Tepe. While there are examples of patterning with finer fines the full range of ETC IIA shapes with white-filled incised and excised designs and motifs is present. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Figure 12.3: A selection of ETC IIA sherds from Yanik Tepe level 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 Figure 12.4: ETC IIB level 12, trench LJ: circle 46 at right, circle 48 at left . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 Figure 12.5: ETC IIB Yanik Tepe pottery is plain with a new range of shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 Figure 12.6: Axonometric drawing of Yanik Tepe ETC III agglutinative rectilinear building in level 9, trench L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 Figure 12.7: Yanik Tepe ETC III agglutinative rectilinear building in level 9, trench L, at a later phase . . . . . . . 307 © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. List Of Illustrations xvii Figure 12.8: ETC III Yanik Tepe pottery continues ETC IIB shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 Figure 12.9: The location of excavated sites in the Urmia Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 Figure 12.10: The suggested zone of ETC III occupation, in dark grey, is located to the south-west of the region where kurgans are found, north-west of Godin III related sites, and west of the Anatolian EB III painted pottery zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 Table 12.1: Periods of known occupation at Yanik Tepe and Haftavan Tepe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 Table 12.2: The chronological scheme for the Urmia Basin proposed in this paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Table 12.3: ETC periods and sub-periods at Yanik Tepe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 Table 12.4: Yanik Tepe ETC level numbers, field designations, and modelled dates cal bce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 Table 12.5: Comparison of ETC II and ETC III architectural characteristics at Yanik Tepe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 13. Notes on the End of the Kura-Araxes (‘Khirbet Kerak’) Presence in the Southern Levant — Raphael Greenberg Figure 13.1: South Levantine sites mentioned in this chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 Figure 13.2: Early IBA chamber tomb in Deganya (left) and tumulus at Ramat Hanadiv (right), with daggers of copper-arsenic alloy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 Table 13.1: Published Radiocarbon dates from KKW-related strata at Tel Bet Yerah and Tel Yaqush . . . . . . . . 321 9. Shengavit from Kura-Araxes to Early Kurgan Periods Hakob Simonyan & Mitchell S. Rothman ABSTRACT – Researchers on the Bronze Ages in the South Caucasus have spent much time debating the end of the Kura-Araxes cultural tradition, associated with the South Caucasian Early Bronze Age, and the periods that followed, generally called the Middle Bronze. We call the Middle Bronze at Shengavit stratum 0. Although no evidence of a destruction layer exists at the site, Sardarian claimed the Middle Bronze was the period after the ‘destruction’ of the site. He therefore claimed that Shengavit’s Kura-Araxes deposits represented four strata plus the postKura-Araxes material. Bayburtian believed there were three strata. Simonyan renewed work at Shengavit in 2000, and then was joined by an American team, led by Rothman, in 2009. Using more refined stratigraphic methods, we have concluded that the chronological and stratigraphic picture of the site is more complex and nuanced than Bayburtian or Sardarian argued. We also believe that its last Kura-Araxes level, stratum I, represents a transition to the Early Kurgan period. We will describe that re-analysis here. In addition, since the remains of the Early Kurgan period are represented mostly by radiocarbon dated pits and graves — archaeologists have found no architectural remains from Shengavit stratum 0 — we will discuss the chronological implications of those graves. In all likelihood this material falls within the Early Kurgan period (Bedeni and Martqopi cultural traditions) of the later third millennium bce, rather than the Trialeti period of the early second period. The presence of a few painted pots leaves some doubt on that conclusion. KEYWORDS: Armenia, Kura-Araxes, Early Kurgan period, Shengavit. The Site of Shengavit Shengavit was a local centre during the KA2 period of 3000 to 2500 bce.1 Remains of architectural levels existed from about 2850 to 2450 bce, and perhaps earlier (Fig. 9.1).2 Although no architectural remains there can be assigned to the Early Kurgan period, there is evidence in the form of radiocarbon dated pits and remains of some graves that people of the Early Kurgan visited the site, dug storage pits into it, and presumably lived there for some stretches of time in temporary housing that so far cannot be identified archaeologically. Researchers like Avetisyan and Bobokhyan3 claim that graves of the Early Kurgan period existed at Shengavit. Whether that is likely or not, we will discuss later, but certainly it is true that Shengavit existed as a place of importance in the memory of these people after the site was largely abandoned as a permanent, year-round settlement. This idea of place as cultural memory is evident at other places with necropoli like Nerkin Naver.4 Also clear is that the site spanned the transition from the Kura-Araxes to the Early Kurgan period. The site of Shengavit sits on the south-western edge of the Koytak Plateau overlooking the Ararat Plain along one of the two north-to-south running rivers, the Hrazdan, that empties into the east–west run- 1 Using the chronological scheme in Batiuk et al. 2022. 2 Simonyan & Rothman 2015; 2023. 3 Avetisyan & Bobokhyan 2008. 4 For example, the long use of the necropolis of Nerkin Naver, Simonyan & Manaseryan 2013. Hakob Simonyan Yerevan Academy of Fine Art, Armenia Mitchell S. Rothman Widener University, Chester, Pennsylvania, USA © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Hakob Simonyan & Mitchell S. Rothman 222 Figure 9.1: The Shengavit mound (Simonyan & Rothman 2023, fig. 1.5). ning Araxes River (Fig. 9.2). Its environment is one of dry steppe with cold winters and hot summers. At 800 m.a.s.l., compared to Gegharot at 2100 m.a.s.l. (only 75 km away) and sites like Mokhrablur in the Ararat Valley at 600–900 m.a.s.l., the environment is one rich in pasture and in areas of rainfall agriculture. The broad flood plain at the foot of the Shengavit mound must have provided rich agricultural land with the potential for intensification through irrigation. Shengavit was first excavated in the 1930s. To quote Bayburtian, ‘In 1935 the quarry workers in search of road fill excavated three areas. All of a sudden, in one of the diggings the workers came across a stone wall, which they destroyed. In the back dirt there were a lot of broken pottery and several fragments of clay hearths. The rumour reached the museum workers, and in the spring of 1936 the town place was observed and once again registered by them as an ancient site of Shresh Blur type. Taking into consideration the scientific significance of the study of a town-site of this type, the Department of the Preservation of Monuments decided to carry out trial excavations, which began on June 14, 1936.’5 Bayburtian was the head the expeditions of the Committee for the Preservation of Historical Monuments.6 In three seasons work spanning 1936– 1938, Bayburtian determined that it was a prehistoric site with a culture he called ‘Shengavitian’,7 what we now call Kura-Araxes (or Early Transcaucasian). His work was stopped, because the Soviets accused him of anti-government activities. He was exiled to Central Asia, where he died. His fieldnotes, a draft of his dissertation, and a sample of his finds he deposited at the National History Museum before he left. Other material was stored in the Erebuni Museum and the Yerevan City Museum. For the 1930s, Bayburtian was an extraordinary archaeologist. For example, his field reports assign 5 Bayburtian fieldnotes, translated by Armenuhi Simonyan. 6 The full dissertation published in Russian by the History Museum of the Republic of Armenia as Bayburtian 2011. 7 Bayburtian 2011, 26–37. 9. Shengavit from Kura-Araxes to Early Kurgan Periods 223 Figure 9.2: The region of Shengavit (after Google Earth). artefacts to particular rooms. However, he did not fully understand the stratigraphy of this tightly packed site, writing at one point how odd it was to put stones on the top of walls. What he was seeing certainly were walls of different buildings placed on top of one another on the same plan. The Soviets decided to build a hospital over part of Bayburtian’s excavation squares. That and other legal and illegal constructions have reduced the probable six hectares of the original site to about two and a half hectares of archaeological remains. According to the stories of old residents, the upper layers of Shengavit were levelled by machinery in the 1950s, and the territory of the settlement was given to the local population for the cultivation of gourds. As a result of land management and economic activities, the upper layer was destroyed. Only the lower parts of household and cult pits, which were discovered as a result of excavations, remained from it. The area of the necropolis outside the settlement walls, on the other hand, was turned into gardens for fruit-bearing trees. During the cultivation of the garden many graves were destroyed. The photographic image of Shengavit in Sardarian’s 1967 book clearly shows that densely planted trees covered the hillside. Still, in Bayburtian’s excavation before 1950, he did not find architectural remains after stratum I, either. In 1958 Sandro Sardarian began excavations again. He and his son continued this work until 1983,8 using the site to train students of archaeology. Sandro Sardarian’s strength was as a synthesizer, and his works have covered a wide range of archaeological cultures in Armenia. However, he did not keep complete, detailed field notes or plans of where he dug, so we really cannot reconstruct stratigraphy or plans for the site for each architectural level from his descriptions.9 The architectural layout in his 1967 book probably conflates a number of architectural levels, a problem exacerbated by the Soviet reconstructions often presented in displays and articles. Any indication of which pottery he kept and which he discarded remains unknown. Clearly, he did not save all of it. Since 2000 the expedition of the Historical and Cultural Heritage Scientific Research Center, headed by Hakob Simonyan, restarted the study of the site. His fieldwork began with a re-excavation and expansion of one of Sardarian’s trenches near the small museum to determine whether Sardarian’s four phases fit the actual 8 Sardarian 1967, 171–82. 9 Sardarian’s 2004 volume was actually written by his daughter, a journalist, from partial notes she found. © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Hakob Simonyan & Mitchell S. Rothman 224 Figure 9.3: Topographic map of Shengavit (Simonyan & Rothman 2023 fig. 3.1). stratigraphy.10 Simonyan also worked in squares K5, K/L 3/4, L6, and in the necropolis beyond the wall and down the western side of the mound’s slope (Fig. 9.3).11 In 2009 Mitchell Rothman joined Simonyan. His goal was finally to publish the remains of the site in a volume and with a web archive (Simonyan & Rothman 2023). To further our understanding of the Kura-Araxes in Armenia we need full publication of finds and analyses, which is all too infrequent. Without that, progress on understanding this important ancient cultural tradition and societal form is not possible. To clarify the stratigraphy and have a detailed, high-resolution sample we dug for three seasons. Simonyan has continued with two short seasons in 2020 and 2021. Mikayel Gevorgyan, Raffi Duragyan, and Hayk 10 Simonyan 2015. 11 Simonyan 2002. Igythyan of the Geophysics Department of the National Academy of Sciences conducted a georadar survey. We dug one square, K6, from topsoil to the bedrock on which the site was founded. It was three and half metres deep. Bayburtian, too, reached bedrock at the same depth, and the georadar showed the same depth at various spots across the still unexcavated parts of the northern third of the site nearest Lake Yerevan, a modern, artificial lake created by damming the Hrazdan River that runs alongside Shengavit’s base. The latest evidence of ancient human activity we call stratum 0. It is defined only by pits cut into the underlying strata and some artefacts of post-Kura-Araxes date (Fig. 9.4.A). Archaeologists have recovered a few probably Early Kurgan period artefacts. Most of our evidence of post-Kura-Araxes date came from the burials, which we will review below. 9. Shengavit from Kura-Araxes to Early Kurgan Periods 225 Figure 9.4: Storage pits (silos), (a) dug into the area of the 2021 excavations likely from Early Kurgan times (Simonyan & Rothman 2023, fig. 3.57), and (b) at Early Bronze Age Amaziya, southern Shephela, Israel (Milevski et al. 2016, fig. 3.3). © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Hakob Simonyan & Mitchell S. Rothman 226 Figure 9.5: Shengavit square K6 strata I/II (drawn by M. Rothman). Stone-lined pits capable of storing large quantities of grain were an important part of the Kura-Araxes economic and probably political organization at Shengavit. Just in the area uncovered in 2021, there were more than one every six metres (see below for implications). This field of deep silos is similar to an Early Bronze Age (late fourth millennium bce) site of Amaziya in the southern Shephela region north of the Negev (Fig. 9.4.B).12 The top two strata, I and II (Fig. 9.5) contained the large, 7 × 14 m buildings with a small annex that represented the final phase of occupation and a hard, often replastered working floor at least 120 m2 in area, which 12 Milevski et al. 2016. covered parts of squares K6, K5, and J5 and was the foundation for the rectangular building of stratum I in square K6. Together we consider this to be architectural level 1.13 A similar building in square I 14 and the tworoom building with a well-preserved ritual emplacement in square M5, both discovered by the georadar survey, were also in architectural level 1. Stratum III (architectural level 2) in square K6 consisted of two buildings (Fig. 9.6). One was a square building with a roof beam base in the middle and a hearth along its west wall, and the other was a round building 13 A stratum is a distinct change in stratigraphic deposits. An architectural level is a series of strata that are separated by remodelling or rebuilding the architectural plan of the site. 227 Figure 9.6: Shengavit squares K6 and J5 stratum III (photographs and drawings by M. Rothman). 9. Shengavit from Kura-Araxes to Early Kurgan Periods © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Hakob Simonyan & Mitchell S. Rothman 228 Figure 9.7: Shengavit square K6 stratum V (photographs and drawings by M. Rothman). Figure 9.8: Shengavit square K6 stratum VI/VII (photographs and drawings by M. Rothman). 9. Shengavit from Kura-Araxes to Early Kurgan Periods 229 Figure 9.9: Shengavit radiocarbon dates calibrated and K6 west balk section (drawing by Hovhannes Sanamyan). © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. 230 Hakob Simonyan & Mitchell S. Rothman Figure 9.10: Shengavit square K6 stratum VIII (Photographs and drawings by M. Rothman). made with two courses of mud-brick, and a bench around its inside. Both of these buildings appear to represent residential spaces. The remodelling of the building in J5 with a ritual emplacement is in this same stratum. Stratum IV (architectural level 3) was a burned building. It had an auxiliary room with a ceramic hearth or ojakh, which apparently was ritually desacralized after the fire by cleaning it out and filling it with a number of centimetres of clean white plaster. The shape of the main room seems to have been square, but it is hard to tell for certain, and the remainder of the strata had to be dug inside the curve of the building 3 round wall, because of the tradition at Shengavit of not removing standing walls. This limited the size of our sample of remains, particularly pottery. The earliest phase we dug in the square J5 building appears to be contemporaneous with this stratum. Stratum V consisted of a one-course, round mud-brick building, which extended into squares K5 and J5, helping to date the square J5 two-room building with a ritual emplacement as a precursor to the M5 ritual emplacement of architectural level 1 (Fig. 9.7). The ancients rebuilt round houses four times on the same spot, each with associated floors and different sized bricks. Strata VI and VII, architectural level 5, included the second and third rebuilding of the round house and an adjoining seemingly square building (Fig. 9.8). Stratum VIII, architectural level 6, represents the first building at Shengavit. It sat directly on bedrock. It includes the first building of the round house, and a small circular semicircle of raw clay (Fig. 9.10). The squarish building rested on fill over the circle without a stone foundation. The base of the round house, built on bedrock, consisted of river sediments in the form of river pebbles cemented by mud plaster. Builders therefore placed the earliest round building on a cylindrical platform, the so-called ‘clay cushion’, or cob, which not only anchored the structure, but also protected it from moisture coming from the ground. That moisture would have undercut the wall. This technique is characteristic of the architecture of the Early Bronze Age. It is well documented at KA1 Norabats, a site excavated by Areshian.14 As for the rectangular building, both round and rectangular architecture were characteristic of the Kura-Araxes culture, as the plans of the Mokhrablur settlement illustrate.15 So, the earlier idea of four architectural levels does not work after a careful excavation with small hand-picks and trowels. Excavations in square K6 indicate eight identifiable strata and six separate architectural levels. Dating them stratigraphically and by the use of absolute dates suggests that the founding of the site starts after 2900 bce although two earlier radiocarbon dates from the early 2000 season, Simonyan argues, leave the possibility of an earlier occupation (see below). The purely Kura-Araxes strata end shortly after 2600 bce (Fig. 9.9), although stratum I, which ends at about 2450 bce is a cultural transition between the Kura-Araxes and Bedeni and Martqopi traditions of the Early Kurgan period. The only radiocarbon dates from stratum 0 fall within the range of 2400 to 2000 bce. They are from the pits described above.16 14 Areshian 2007. 15 See Simonyan & Rothman 2023, figs 4a.3, 4, and 9. 16 The fuzziness of the radiocarbon curve after 3000 bce in this region makes precise dating difficult. 9. Shengavit from Kura-Araxes to Early Kurgan Periods Kura-Araxes or Early Kurgan Period? Does pottery typology help in discriminating levels? We chose to build our typology first on functional variability. To avoid modern ethnocentric interference in this we chose to characterize the forms as open, closed, and intermediate. Open forms certainly consist in general 231 of what are usually called bowls — the circumference at the rim is wider than the body — and closed to a particular class of narrow necked jars — the circumference at the rim is much smaller than that of the body — (Fig. 9.11). Intermediate vessels include what more commonly might be called high-sided bowls, wide Figure 9.11: Shengavit pottery typology (after Rothman 2023, figs 5e.18, 22, 23, 24). Figure 9.12: Periodicity of Shengavit pottery types over time (after Rothman 2023, fig. 5e.20). © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Hakob Simonyan & Mitchell S. Rothman 232 Figure 9.13: Variation in pottery surface style. Figure 9.14: Changing surface style at Shengavit (A: ritual symbol from tomb, B–D: different surface treatments, E: various pots from M5) (photographs by M. Rothman). mouthed jars, etc., where the mouth is about the same circumference as the body. In relative chronological terms variations in pottery style are not that sensitive to time, as the chart of the open category illustrates (Fig. 9.12). By taking the time to measure in detail over 1400 pots and sherds from only the best primary and secondary contexts — these raw data will be available on the uchicago Shengavit digital archive17 — we could see how they varied over time. Most, in fact, we found throughout the occupation of Shengavit. A few variations were more limited in time. In a study of the broader Kura-Araxes cultural tradition and societal organization, Rothman18 concluded that more sensitive to cultural identity and change was the treatment of the surfaces, particularly the exterior, perhaps even more so than the shapes (Fig. 9.13). At Shengavit, in regard to surface treatment, there were some noticeable changes. The earliest levels had few of the complex incised designs that typify 17 <https://onlinepublications.uchicago.edu/shengavit> . 18 Rothman 2021b. Shengavit and related pottery styles (Fig. 9.14.B–E, Table 9.1). In part this might be a result of the smaller sample from strata IV to VIII. Still, even compared to stratum I, the highest percentage of the complex designs by far occurred in stratum III. Interestingly enough, incised designs on Early Kurgan pots do not have a wide distribution. Cross-hatch triangles, common during the Kura-Araxes proper, represent many of these designs from Early Kurgan times. Not present in clearly post-Kura-Araxes, Early Kurgan times is the design associated most with ritual spaces (Fig. 9.14.A).19 This conference, however, is primarily about the transition from the Kura-Araxes to the Early Kurgan period. Avetisyan and Bobokhyan write, ‘Within the transition period we see the degradation of the system of particularities typical of earlier groups (namely the breakdown of the elements of the former system, diversity of cultural patterns, etc.) and the appearance of new elements and parameters, most of which find their 19 Simonyan & Rothman 2015; 2023. 9. Shengavit from Kura-Araxes to Early Kurgan Periods 233 Table 9.1: Number of designs on pots by stratum. relations, b) whether the transformations involved one, or more than one, or every sphere of the community life, c) whether the innovations moved in the direction of the change that matured in the following phase.’21 The transition of style is apparent at Shengavit. Excavators recovered a classic, combed Bedeni pot with burnish just under the rim in square M5 of stratum I (Fig. 9.15).22 Avetisyan and Bobokhyan assign two Shengavit tombs to the Early Kurgan I. However, as Figure 9.16 shows, most pots in the tombs fit easily into the typology of long-lasting Kura-Araxes styled ceramics. A minority of the vessels fit Bedeni or Martqopi styles (Fig. 9.17). In Avetisyan and Bobokhyan’s formulation, the ‘degredation’ of the particularities of KuraAraxes surface treatment began after stratum III, and to those changes in strata I and II, potters added a limited number Early Kurgan features. Figure 9.15: Bedeni pot from square M5 (Rothman 2023, fig. 5e.14). place in the system of the coming groups.’20 This statement allows for a transition within the local culture and not always the sudden appearance of new groups, each with their own distinct set of cultural traits. As Frangipane writes, ‘When studying one of these obscure moments it is crucial to try to understand the nature of what actually changed between the earlier and the later phases; that is to say find out: a) whether there were any real structural changes in the social and/or political organization of society and its internal and external 20 Avetisyan & Bobokhyan 2008. However, there is no reason to see a foreign element, as one of our outside reviewers suggested. The continuity of styles from the Kura-Araxes Early Bronze Age to the Early Kurgan period is quite clear. It is the reason why Sagona believed that the Kura-Araxes continued until 1600 bce.23 We argue that the contrasting economic and political organization and lifestyles of the Early Kurgan period and the Kura-Araxes, which are not directly correlated with pottery style, distinguish the periods. 21 Frangipane 2012. 22 This pot we recovered in M5 Locus 24015, which was associated with a pit in the south-eastern corner of M5. Its exact context is not clear. 23 Sagona 2018. © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Hakob Simonyan & Mitchell S. Rothman 234 Figure 9.16: Pots from tombs 1 and 2 (after Avetisyan & Bobokhyan 2008, figs 1 and 2). Tombs 1 and 2 at Shengavit are part of a cemetery outside the wall of the settlement.24 In total the Sardarian and Simonyan teams excavated eighteen tombs in this cemetery. Given that the site lasted at least 350 years, there must be other places where the dead were buried. Builders of the artificial Lake Yerevan found a grave on the opposite side of the Hrazdan River, but there must be some other places, maybe under the road that runs by the site, where they buried the rest of their dead. One wonders whether the tombs closest to the settlement wall represent groups with higher status. Tomb 1 was a classic crypt grave (Fig. 9.18). ‘It is square in plan, measuring 3.6 × 3.0 m, 1 m deep from the surface of the ground. The skeletons of both men and women occupied the tomb. Ninety-eight whole 24 Simonyan 2023. and fragmentary pottery vessels rested in the tomb.’25 ‘At the bottom of one bowl, decorated on the outside with finely carved rows of triangles and meanders was a trace of red ochre. Also in the burial were a gold pendant (Fig. 9.19.A), an earring or hair ring (Fig. 9.19.B), silver rings, a bronze axe with herringbone engraved ornament on the surface of the spherical handle (Fig. 9.19.F), a flat axe with expanding blade (Fig. 9.19.E), arrowheads, a pin for clothing (a fibula?) with a riveted figurine of a marten with hooked heads (Fig. 9.19.D), copper bracelets (Fig. 9.19.C), flat leaf-shaped dart tip, bronze tall rings, a scroll, a stone casting mould, stone maces, and bone arrowheads.’26 The walls of tomb 2 were ‘lined with river stones in a single row, and the tomb itself was covered with earth. Square in plan, measuring 3.0 × 2.5 m, 0.75 m deep from 25 Badalyan et al. 2015, 144–59. 26 Simonyan 2023. 9. Shengavit from Kura-Araxes to Early Kurgan Periods Figure 9.17: Bedeni and Martqopi pots (after Sagona 2018, fig. 7.13, Sagona 2006, fig. 65). Figure 9.18: Tomb 1 (after Sardarian 1967, pl. 38). © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. 235 236 Hakob Simonyan & Mitchell S. Rothman Figure 9.19: Tomb 1 contents (Simonyan 2023, fig. 6b.2). Figure 9.20: Tomb 2 contents (Simonyan 2023, fig. 6b.4). the ground surface, the ancients built the tomb on a floor of small pebbles. Three skeletons lay in the tomb. One skeleton had a gold ring on their finger (Fig. 9.20.A), next to the other skeleton there was a single-handled, red-lacquered vessel with a tubular spout covered with a highly polished slip (Fig. 9.20.B). […] In addition, there were nine whole vessels […]: eight with a black surface and one red, plus a gold ring,27 a stone mace-head, and arrowheads of bone.’ The grave goods of both emphasize exotic material that may be seen as a symbol of wealth for the group that was buried there. Also, in tomb 1 were symbols of hunting or combat. Perhaps they marked some achieved status28 in one or another valued activity of some of the individuals buried there. Other burials like the disturbed burials in Site III had a clearly Early Kurgan closed vessel with painted designs (Fig. 9.21). Yet, nearby it — we are not sure if it was in the same grave — were tools associated with cooking and agricultural work (sickle elements and obsidian tools). Tomb 17, also disturbed, in addition to two earrings or hair rings contained grinding stones, flint sickle elements, flake tools, 27 Badalyan et al. 2015, 160–63. 28 Achieved status refers to status gained by deeds and skills, as opposed to ascribed status conferred by birth. 9. Shengavit from Kura-Araxes to Early Kurgan Periods 237 Figure 9.21: Grave goods in tomb 17 (Simonyan 2023, fig. 6b.14). Figure 9.22: Early Kurgan, Middle Bronze pots from Shengavit (Rothman 2023a, fig. 5e.23). © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. 238 and bone shovels. In the area of the tomb archaeologists recovered male and female skeletal parts. Many bodies were beheaded or cut up, and often mixed with bones of cattle or sheep. Diggers found several dozen fragments of pots with a black surface and painted pottery of reddish and white hues in the ruined upper layer (Fig. 9.22). They differ from Kura-Araxes pottery in technology and ornamentation. Black surface pottery of the post-Kura-Araxes culture has thinner walls. Potters decorated the round shoulder in accordance with the canons of Middle Bronze Age pottery-making practices. The inner side is most often grey. The ornaments are primarily applied by incising with some plastic elements. The predominant motifs are oblique straight lines, forming latticefilled rectangles, triangles, leaf-like patterns, etc. Early Kurgan ceramics also include a vessel with a drain and a bowl with a large rounded handle, found in the area of the necropolis. This bowl from Shengavit bears a striking resemblance to items from the Martqopi mounds. We also found thin-walled, perfectly burnished pottery fragments, which are widely represented in the large mounds at Bedeni and Jogaz. With this small sample, it is not possible to trace a larger pattern, but clearly the ritual emphasized different activities and possessions in life. Yet, all described here were graves with multiple bodies. Their grave goods suggest an important status for the families or groups buried there. Discussion Clearly, stratum I and the largely unpreserved stratum 0 were part of a transition between Shengavit’s Late KA2 and the Middle Bronze period, more likely its earlier Early Kurgan phase. To understand the transition, we need to go beyond pottery style, as Frangipane quoted above suggests. The rate of change in pottery style is important, but it is the other side of Culture with a capital ‘C’,29 the societal and organizational one, that we need to understand to explain how and why it changed. Hakob Simonyan & Mitchell S. Rothman mounds of the KA1. More than physical growth, the centralized functions of these sites increased. From still simple, and largely egalitarian settlement systems, small polities with a centre and satellite sites appeared. The centre had some specialized functions (grain storage, ritual, commercial) that its satellite communities depended on.31 Its leaders gained at least influence, if not yet true authority. For Shengavit, intensified agriculture filled the many, many large grain storage pits at the site.32 Presumably, those who controlled this grain had an advantage and the ability to feed workers whose efforts they coordinated. One thing they did, we now know, was to construct a massive settlement wall no earlier than strata III or IV (Fig. 9.23). For reasons mysterious to us, some claim the wall was not Kura-Araxes.33 Simonyan’s excavations in 2021 proved that wrong.34 Whether this wall was necessary for defence, or as a symbol and vehicle to establish the influence of a small group of kinsmen, it demonstrates the origin of new political and social institutions. Simonyan sees this as indicative of an urban system with wealth differentials and some authority structures and also with soldiers.35 Rothman, having studied the rise of the state in Mesopotamia, sees this as less complex, rather a vertical egalitarian society.36 Many indications at Shengavit that he and other analysts37 have investigated suggest mostly domestic production for local consumption, and a limited area of economic interaction for the most part. Most burials had multiple skeletal remains. The lack of any other indications of social differentiation in contemporaneous house form38 or contents also suggest this was not a state or even complex chiefly society. Others agree and see no such societal complexity until the Late Bronze Age.39 Simonyan, however, calls this ‘early complexity’. Certainly, we authors agree that Shengavit showed how a ranked society could begin to be constructed at this date. In the broader region, as Simonyan’s new excavations in Gorayk in the highlands of Armenia show, as early as the first half of the third millennium bce, pas- Kura-Araxes Shengavit represents, as Areshian30 has argued, the real change that happened in the KA2, 3000–2500 bce, in the Araxes River Basin. The number of KA2 sites increased exponentially. Some sites, like Shengavit, were bigger than the typical one-hectare 31 Rothman 2015; 2021a. 29 Culture is made up of mental and organizational aspects; Rothman 2023b. 37 See Simonyan & Rothman 2023. 30 Areshian 2007. 32 Rothman 2015. 33 Kohl 2007. 34 Simonyan & Rothman 2023. 35 Simonyan 2015. 36 Rothman 2021a. 38 They do change over time. 39 Sagona 2018; Smith et al. 2004. 9. Shengavit from Kura-Araxes to Early Kurgan Periods 239 Figure 9.23: Shengavit wall. A. Western side of three-part wall. (Bayburtian 2011, pl. 9), B. Excavation of wall on the north 2021, C. Georadar image of wall (Duragyan et al. 2023, fig. 4c.4), D. Excavation of wall on the north 2021 (Simonyan & Sanamyan 2023, fig. 4b.18). toralist groups appeared in the north of Armenia with a different kind of leadership. According to Simonyan, with thousands of obsidian artefacts, its egg-shaped tomb may mark the deceased’s status at the Gorayk tomb as someone with influence or even some control.40 What happened to cause this Kura-Araxes system to degrade is a big question for which we need a lot more information. It is reasonable to hypothesize that the agro-pastoral system that was the basis of Kura-Araxes societal success began to fail toward the end of the twenty-sixth century bce. Some small centres hung on, although there are a lot of abandonments in the twentyseventh century bce in the diaspora and at nearby 40 Simonyan 2021. Gegharot, whose end excavators now date to 2600 bce.41 Was this because environmental conditions changed?42 Sufficient data do not exist to answer that question. Was it because of competition with groups from the north? The ancients had been building kurgans there for a long time. There was never a time when a mobile population did not exist in the broader region. Was it a disruption in the social order of the Kura-Araxes society, as happened in the Early Bronze II in the Levant?43 There are no typical signs of warfare. 41 Manning et al. 2018. 42 Manning et al. 2018. 43 Greenberg 2019. © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. 240 In any case, the population seems to have become more mobile. Agricultural tools in some transitional period burials suggest, however, that agriculture continued as an essential task. Also, new information from the South Caucasus suggests that there were more settlements than we at first thought.44 Still, a lack of settlements compared to the number of grave sites does open the possibility that some had taken up a more nomadic pastoral existence. Other factors suggest a changing human landscape. The Early Kurgan burial contents indicate some violent competition followed the Kura-Araxes. Is that why chariots or wagons and horses appear as grave goods in the Middle Bronze Age? Were individuals or groups promoted into new leadership positions dependent on their military role? Was it about commercial connections across a larger area? The new kurgan mortuary practices may reflect this change.45 Perhaps, the decline was about rapidly declining population. The Yamnaya have been shown to have suffered from and spread bubonic plague to settled populations.46 Did their descendants bring a crisis to settled Kura-Araxes society? DNA testing is underway on Shengavit skeletons, but no definitive answers are available so far. Did dialectic stresses undermine these new institutions, so that they could not cope with new stresses successfully? Of course, it could be a combination of all these factors. Unfortunately, we do not have enough data to know, yet. 44 Hammer 2022; Nugent 2017. 45 Sagona 2018. 46 Rasmussen et al. 2015. Hakob Simonyan & Mitchell S. Rothman 9. Shengavit from Kura-Araxes to Early Kurgan Periods 241 Works Cited Areshian, Gregory 2007 ‘From Extended Families to Incipient Polities: The Trajectory of Social Complexity in the Early Bronze Age of the Ararat Plain’, in Laura M. Popova, Charles W. Hartley & Adam T. Smith (eds), Social Orders and Social Landscapes. Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle: 26–54. Avetisyan, Pavel & Bobokhyan, Arsen 2008 ‘The Pottery Traditions of the Armenian Middle to Late Bronze Age “Transition” in the Context of Bronze and Iron Age Periodization’, in Karen Rubinson and Antonio Sagona (eds), Ceramics in Transitions: Chalcolithic through Iron Age in the Highlands of the South Caucasus and Anatolia. Peeters, Leuven: 123–84. Badalyan, Ruben; Hovsepyan, Sona & Khachatryan, Ludvig 2015 Shengavit: Catalog of Archaeological Materials from the Collections of the Museum of History of Armenia. Museum of History of Armenia, Yerevan [in Russian]. Batiuk, Stephen; Rothman, Mitchell S.; Samei, Siavash & Hovsepyan, Roman 2022 ‘Unravelling the Kura-Araxes Cultural Tradition across Space and Time’, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 59: 239–329. Bayburtian, Evgeni 2011 Sequence of Ancient Cultures of Armenia on the Basis of Archaeological Material. Armenian Museum of History, Yerevan [in Russian]. Duragyan, Raffi; Gevorgyan, Mikayel & Igythyan, Haik 2023 ‘Results of the Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Survey of the Shengavit’, in Hakob Simonyan & Mitchell S. Rothman (eds), Shengavit: A Kura-Araxes Center in Armenia. Mazda, Costa Mesa: 91–94. Frangipane, Marcella 2012 ‘Transitions as an Archaeological Concept: Interpreting the Final Ubaid-Late Chalcolithic Transition in the Northern Periphery of Mesopotamia’, in Catherine Marro (ed.), After the Ubaid: Interpreting Change from the Caucasus to Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Urban Civilization (4500–3500 bc). De Boccard, Paris: 39–64. Greenberg, Raphael 2019 Archaeology of the Bronze Age Levant. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hammer, Emily 2022 ‘Economy and Mobility during the “Nomadic” Middle Bronze Age in the South Caucasus: New Data from Naxçivan, Azerbaijan’, unpublished (?) paper delivered at the Human Movement and Mobility in High Landscape Environments conference. Goethe Institute, 29 April 2022. Kohl, Philip 2007 The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Manning, Stuart; Smith, Adam; Khatchadourian, Lori; Badalyan, Ruben; Lindsay, Ian; Greene, Alan & Marshall, Maureen 2018 ‘A New Chronological Model for the Bronze and Iron Age South Caucasus: Radiocarbon Results from Project ArAGATS, Armenia’, Antiquity 92/366: 1530–51. Milevski, Ianir; Braun, Eliot; Varga, Daniel & Israel, Yigal 2016 ‘On Some Possible Implications of a Newly Discovered Early Bronze Age Large-Scale Silo Complex at Amaziya, Nahal Lachish (Israel)’, in Linda Manzanilla & Mitchell S. Rothman (eds), Storage in Ancient Complex Societies: Administration, Organization, and Control. Routledge, New York: 61–84. © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. 242 Hakob Simonyan & Mitchell S. Rothman Nugent, Selin E. 2017 ‘Pastoral Mobility and the Formation of Complex Settlement in the Middle Bronze Age Şərur Valley, Azerbaijan’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Ohio State University). Rasmussen, Simon; Allentoft, Morten Erik; Nielsen, Kasper; Orlando, Ludovic; Sikora, Martin; Sjögren, Karl-Göran; Pedersen, Anders Gorm; Schubert, Mikkel; Van Dam, Alex; Moliin Outzen Kapel, Christian; Bjørn Nielsen, Henrik; Brunak, Søren; Avetisyan, Pavel; Epimakhov, Andrey; Khalyapin, Mikhail Viktorovich; Gnuni, Artak; Kriiska, Aivar; Lasak, Irena; Metspalu, Mait; Moiseyev, Vyacheslav; Gromov, Andrei; Pokutta, Dalia; Saag, Lehti; Varul, Liivi; Yepiskoposyan, Levon; Sicheritz-Pontén, Thomas; Foley, Robert A.; Mirazón Lahr, Marta; Nielsen, Rasmus; Kristiansen, Kristian & Willerslev, Eske 2015 ‘Early Divergent Strains of Yersinia pestis in Eurasia’, Cell 163/3: 571–82 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cell.2015.10.009>. Rothman, Mitchell S 2015 ‘The Changing Organization of Kura-Araxes Culture’, in Mehmet Işıklı & Birol Can (eds), International Symposium on East Anatolia South Caucasus Cultures, i. Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle: 121–31. 2021a ‘Approaches to the Nature of the Kura-Araxes Societies in their Homeland’, in Francesca Balossi Restelli, Andrea Cardarelli, Gian Maria Di Nocera, Linda Manzanilla, Lucia Mori, Giulio Palumbi & Holly Pittman (eds), Pathways through Arslantepe: Essays in Honour of Marcella Frangipane. Universitá di Roma Sapienza, Rome: 163–72. 2021b ‘From the South Caucasus to Iran, the Kura-Araxes’, Iranian Archaeology Series <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqigQxA0FW7HDNrhF4Px4Qw/videos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=0> [accessed 1 December 2023]. 2023a ‘The Pottery’, in Hakob Simonyan & Mitchell S. Rothman (eds), Shengavit: A Kura-Araxes Center in Armenia. Mazda Publications, Costa Mesa: 151–74. 2023b ‘Reconstructing the Lifeways of the Kura-Araxes’, in Yervand Grekyan & Arsen Bobokhyan (eds), Systemizing the Past: Papers in the Near Eastern and Caucasian Archaeology Dedicated to Pavel Avetisyan on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Archaeopress, Oxford: 411–23. Sagona, Antonio 2006 The Heritage of Eastern Turkey. MacMillan, Melbourne. 2014 ‘Rethinking the Kura-Araxes Genesis’, Paléorient 40/2: 23–46. 2018 The Archaeology of the Caucasus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sardarian, Sandro 1967 Primitive Society in Armenia. ‘Mitk’, Yerevan [in Armenian and English]. 2004 Armenia: The Cradle of Civilization. Yerevan University Publishing House, Yerevan [in Armenian]. Simonyan, Hakob 2002 ‘The Stratigraphy, Building, and Construction Principles of Shengavit’, in Ancient Culture of Armenia: The Scientific Forum Dedicated to Emma Kanzadian’s Jubilee. Gitutyun, Yerevan: 18–25. 2015 ‘The Archaeological Site of Shengavit: An Ancient Town in the Armenian Highland’, Fundamental Armenology 1: 134–68. 2021 ‘Il Kurgan di Gorayk, testo e foto Hakob Simonyan; schede Roberto Dan; a cura di Roberto Dan, “L’Armenia e la Grande Steppa Onori al Principe Eroe”’, Archeologia viva 209: 8–16. 2023 ‘The Mortuary Practices’, in Hakob Simonyan & Mitchell S. Rothman (eds), Shengavit: A Kura-Araxes Center in Armenia. Mazda, Costa Mesa, CA.: 217–44. 9. Shengavit from Kura-Araxes to Early Kurgan Periods 243 Simonyan, Hakob & Manaseryan, Nina 2013 ‘Royal Tombs with Horse Sacrifices in Nerkin Naver, Armenia (Middle Bronze)’, in Bea De Cupere, Veerle Linseele & Sheila Hamilton-Dyer (eds), Archaeozoology of the Near East, x (Ancient Near East Studies, Supplement 44). Peeters, Leuven: 173–208. Simonyan, Hakob & Rothman, Mitchell S 2015 ‘Regarding Ritual Behaviour at Shengavit, Armenia’, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 52: 1–46. 2022 ‘New Data on the Construction of the Shengavit Settlement Wall’, in Aram Kosyan, Pavel Avetisyan, Kristine Martirosyan-Olshansky, Arsen Bobokhyan & Yervand Grekyan (eds), Paradise Lost: The Phenomenon of the Kura-Araxes Tradition along the Fertile Crescent; Essays in Honour of the 65th Birthday of Ruben Badalyan, special issue, Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies (AJNES) 16 /1–2: 406–27. 2023 Shengavit: A Local Kura-Araxes Center in Armenia. Mazda Publications, Costa Mesa. CA. Simonyan, Hakob & Sanamyan, Hovhannes 2023 ‘The Architecture of Shengavit’, in Hakob Simonyan & Mitchell S. Rothman (eds), Shengavit: A Local KuraAraxes Center in Armenia. Mazda, Costa Mesa: 81–90. Smith, Adam; Badalyan, Ruben; Avetisyan, Pavel; Zardaryan, Mkrtich with contributions by Hayrapetyan, Armine; Minc, Leah & Monahan, Belinda 2004 ‘Early Complex Societies in Southern Caucasia: A Preliminary Report on the 2002 Investigations by Project ArAGATS on the Tsakahovit Plain, Republic of Armenia’, American Journal of Archaeology 108/1: 1–43. © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER.